"Yobbo, you've missed the point, Non-GM farmers lose our options too as we are expected to sell as GM."

Then your problem isn't really GM, is it? It's single-desk marketing, the same problem that's plagued farmers since it was invented.

Non GM Farmer “Anybody thinking GM crops are for the benefit of farmers must be extremely gullible.”

Are you telling me that there are over 8.5 million gullible farmers in the world? In fact some of these same farmers are so gullible they have grown GM crops every year since 1996? Some of these very same gullible farmers are large cotton growers in Australia who grow GM cotton so they don’t have to spray their fields so often with insecticide. Some of these same gullible farmers in China, Brazil, India and Paraguay were so gullible that they broke the law to grow GM crops. Some of these same gullible farmers in Brazil and Paraguay then pressured their governments to change the law because they didn’t want to have to do without GM crops.

Has it ever occurred to you or others that these farmers might see a use for GM crops? How many cotton farmers in Australia have you been able to persuade to not grow GM crops? Your fellow travelers like Ho, Benbrook, Shiva and Greenpeace that you quote so often spend their time trying to dupe third world governments into banning these crops to support their own ideological views. If GM crops are as useless as you say, how come the number of farmers growing them continues to increase every year?

GM crops can offer solutions to otherwise intractable problems. In the third world, a significant amount of potential yield is lost to pathogens and insects. Seed with a built in insecticide or fungicide would allow these farmers to harvest higher yields, make more money and a better quality of life for both them and their families. It is OK to say that normal plant breeding will contribute to this and it may, but you can’t achieve the result if the trait is not present in the available gene pool (such as insecticide resistance that is non-toxic to humans).

GMO Pundit has just posted two items about The End of Poverty.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/end-of-poverty-part-i-positives.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/end-of-poverty-part-ii-reversal-of.html

Pundit has noted that the idea that there is plenty of food in the world is commonly cited as the reason why new agricultural technologies are not needed. In reading through these sections of Sachs, GMO Pundit was struck by the fact that this excess of food was of no help to this African family of Sachs' book as they were isolated from those supplies, and in any case, are dependent almost exclusively on their own farm productivity for income. Pundit is also struck by the positive role of technology in so many of the factors promoting greater prosperity in this family, and its potential to mitigate the threats to its prosperity. Pundit thinks that the arguments that better nutrition (such as Golden Rice) can improve farmer prosperity that have been made by Australian economist Kym Anderson are also very persuasive. In the Transkei, Republic of South Africa, for instance malnutrition in poor farmers is one of many contributors to poor farm productivity and poverty.

http://www.economics.adelaide.edu.au/staff/anderson.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=508463

At the above links provide a description of the basic situation faced by millions of small farmers today.

Opinionated2 has asked me several questions. Its time for me to pose some of her, after she considersa the posts above.

Is it wise to curtail efforts to improve farming productivity when so many farmers in the world are limited in income by poor productivity on their own farms, and that's their only source of income, and they are cut of from the plentiful supplies elsewhere?

Is it fair to say that poverty, malnutrition and rural farm efficiency in the developing world are intricately connected, and we cannot separate any one of the as a separate "root cause".

Would it be fair to say that nutrient enhanced crops could play an important role in improving poverty and productivity in Africa and Asia?

GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

Yobbo (?LB), single desk marketing is nothing whatsoever to do with non-GM farmers being expected to market as GM.
If GM canola is introduced, GM contamination will occur. Because the costs and liabilities involved for the non-GM farmers will be price prohibitive, farmers will be forced to market as GM - just like Canada does. While being able to grow GM without any restrictions will benefit the GM growers, it will be detrimental to non-GM farmers as we are expected to accept market losses involved.
GM must be analysed on a case by case basis. Do your sums, with the information available, GM canola in Australia does not equate to a benefit but does equate to a risk (hence the moratoriums based on economic and market grounds).
The best legal defence we have available for economic loss experienced is to sue our GM farmer neighbour. GM farmers have a duty of care to prevent their product causing economic loss to their neighbours and the coexistence plans are inadequate in dealing with the problems. Non-GM farmers do not accept the crop management plans prepared by the GM industry and if these are adopted, the GM farmer may have a legal avenue out but legal responsibility should be on the GM company that prepared inadequate management plans.

Who do you think should be liable for economic loss caused by GM products?
- The Non-GM farmer (as proposed)
- The GM farmer
- The government (state or federal?)
- The GM company that owns the patent, the license, prepared inadequate management plans and gave inadequate information to GM farmers in order to make informed decisions?

More for Julie NonGM Newman:

It’s not that I can’t accept the truth, it’s that what is on the record is pretty damning (essentially that you didn’t know how your site was set up), and you still haven’t answered the questions of when you knew what. Just give us a timeline. For all those who want to see what The Weekly Times reported about Julie’s contradictions, “”Farmer Lobby confirms Greenpeace link”, 7 April 2004 it’s now up at
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/greenpeace-and-network-of-concerned.html

“But the money was donated to Greenpeace by a farmer who supported us”. Ms Newman said.

I have the text of an earlier version of Julie’s webpage, Agronomist. It is dated 23 March 2004, which I downloaded on 7 April 2004. Here are a few snippets, some of which have been a bit sanitized in today’s version (http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1139).

“Website: I personally update the information on our website almost daily”. So Julie used this site a lot, but as we’ll see next, didn’t know who funded it.

“I have only recently been made aware that an original donation of $3,500 was given from a good friend of mine, a farmer/businessman from WA (who wishes to remain anonymous but for those investigative journalists insistent on details, can be given providing confidentiality is maintained). He made a decision to support us after seeing just how much information I had available. He decided it would be good idea to have a website but I was uncomfortable about my friend funding something for me (hence the delay in finding who funded this and I previously believed that farmers had set it up for us). As we had no bank account at this early stage, the donor arranged this funding via Greenpeace. The recommended programmer (Nick Haase) prepared the skeleton framework of the website.”

Just who were these “farmers” who you thought set this up? Considering how extraordinarily curious you seem about GM, it seems odd indeed that you would update a website daily but not know its origins. And why not just give the money directly to Nick Haase?

Hey, Julie, here’s more I found in that earlier version of your webpage, dated 23 March 2004, which I downloaded on 7 April 2004.

“Greenpeace connection?: Many rumours have been circulating regarding our supposed links with Greenpeace and it appeared to stem from Agrifood Awareness who have been known to state this at meetings with influential farm lobby groups in an attempt to supposedly discredit our debate with farmers. After a threat of legal action, this appeared to stop but not before many took Paula Fitzgerald's word as fact rather than fiction.”

So it seems clear that you were then still keen to separate yourself from Greenpeace in March 2004. And maybe you had good reason. As your fellow Networker Nic Kentish told the ABC Rural Report on April 1 2004 (I have that transcript too) “The other alternative is to talk about the Network of Concerned Farmers as a bunch of leaders, partially supported by Greenpeace, doesn’t gel too well with most farmers. It's a paradigm shift they can't cope with. Farmers aren't supposed to get along with Greenpeace or their attitudes and beliefs.”

As David Claughton of the ABC said, “That's the view of the Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman, Nic Kentish.”

But there you are on 7 April, ”Farmer Lobby confirms Greenpeace link”.

You know, I am still wondering why we don’t hear from Nick anymore. I loved hearing him on the ABC. Can you bring him back as a spokesman? He had that refreshing honesty.

Julie, before we have to be worried about who will pay for losses, we ought to see real evidence, not your wrong stats, that there will be losses. How about if you answer Agronomist about using official statistics.

Dear Opinionated2: A excellent way to cure Vitamin A deficiency is daily green vegetables. Great idea, but where does a poor family grow or buy green vegetables (or buy Vitamin A) in places like the slums of Mumbai? Your “let them eat cake” argument doesn’t recognize the practical realities as to why this problem has not been solved by other means